Re: von Neumann quote

[John M <***>]

Jamie,
Thanks for the info - there are some controversies (aren't they always?) You
wrote:
"So pioneers aren't just tied to the future, we are dragged back to deal
with the lingering past and its extended presence in the 'now'.  We have to
'argue -for- change', not just present the expanded vision of the new
information involved."
I don't know what experiences you made in pioneering, I did it in polymer
science: could not duplicate the 'lingering past' circumstances because ot
the restrictions by the commis, so I jumped into the unknown - available
circumstances and "let's see what happens". Then, after some modifications,
'I had it' on different grounds from any idea written in past experiences.
(Patents were approved).
In my cosmological "narrative" to provide human logically acceptable
circumstances for the conventional physical paradoxical views of our
existence, I did not 'study and modfy' them: I broke new ways and arrived at
a feasible result (as long as it does not gets disproven).

You also wrote:
"> Unless you are saying that JvN altered his view
> through the years, I thought to share the quote here
> since it clearly shows the chasm between JvN and RR.<"
No need, JvN was not wrong and his 'first step' was further developed into
the 'other' types of practical modeling - and into RR's theoretical views,
after JvN was gone for long. Don't overestimate and compare RR's remarks
over a 30 years span of his very active developmental work.
"> But if all you have is a language that is built of finite components,
...<"
This may refer to my words about math as a human language and mix it with my
contrasting word of APPLIED math in reductionist sciences, as I presume. Not
the former, the latter includes the 'finite components'. The models, which
get 'equated' for final (generalized) conclusions.

"> You don't walk up to some one of respected age and years and
> say 'thanks so much, but your whole life and being were blind,
> misunderstanding and worthless. you have no truth or reality,
> but thanks for being here and taking up space until we could
> come along.'  (!)   no no no  you just don't do that.<"
Happened to Ptolemy.
I don't use your flowery language. I can't em[phsise more my appreciation
for the reductionistic science/technology achievements of the past (and
present). Nice words you put in my mouth.
I think you are pushing me into a fight for positions I never took. I don't
go into such. This is why I usually don't respond to posts too long and
straying into topics after topics. I pick ONE point to argue about. Even in
such 'one points' there is no reason every time to argue. I may let it go.

Have a good day

JohnM


----- Original Message -----
From: "James N Rose" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: von Neumann quote


> John,
>
> I picked up this quote from Vic Stenger's
> "skeptics" list, one of his list members
> who wrote a nice piece on the relationship
> of math in comparison to phenomenal reality.
> Where math is the 'essential criteria/language/
> model' [depiction of phenomena versus instantiated
> of the phenomena].
>SNIP
...
>Jamie